Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53297 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that 

the action will not have tribal 

implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175, and will not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law. 

We note that none of the tribes located 

in the SJV has requested eligibility to 

administer programs under the CAA. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 8, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(476) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(476) The following revision was 

submitted on November 13, 2015 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Attachment A to Resolution 15–50, 

‘‘Updates to the Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin 

Valley 2007 PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012 

PM2.5 SIPs,’’ Table A–1 (Updated 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the 2008 Ozone Plan (Tons per summer 

day) and Table A–3 (Updated 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the 2008 PM10 Maintenance Plan (Tons 

per annual day)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Subpart F is amended by adding 

§ 52.248 to read as follows: 

§ 52.248 Identification of plan—conditional 

approval. 

The EPA is conditionally approving a 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted on November 

13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and coarse particulate matter 

(PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10

standard for the San Joaquin Valley 

PM10 maintenance area. The conditional 

approval is based on a commitment 

from the State to submit a SIP revision 

that demonstrates full implementation 

of the contingency provisions of the 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Request for Redesignation (September 

20, 2007). If the State fails to meets its 

commitment by June 1, 2017, the 

approval is treated as a disapproval. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18898 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0724; FRL–9950–52– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa 

Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner’s 

Order 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Indiana State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) on October 16, 

2015. The submittal consists of an order 

issued by the Commissioner of IDEM 

(Commissioner’s Order No. 2015–01) 

approving alternative control 

technology requirements for Abengoa 

Bioenergy of Indiana (Abengoa). These 

requirements include the use of a 

carbon adsorption/absorption 

hydrocarbon vapor recovery system 

with a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98% to control volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from the ethanol loading racks at 

Abengoa. A continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) must be used 

to monitor the carbon adsorption/

absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery 

system for breakthrough of VOC 

emissions. For the reasons discussed 

below, EPA is approving this submittal 

as a revision to Indiana’s SIP. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 11, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 12, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0724, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53298 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832, 

Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What SIP revision is Indiana requesting 

and why? 

II. What action is EPA taking and why? 

III. Incorporation by Reference. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What SIP revision is Indiana 

requesting and why? 

IDEM requested on October 16, 2015, 

that EPA approve as a revision to the 

SIP alternative control technology 

requirements for Abengoa. These 

requirements include the use of a 

carbon adsorption/absorption 

hydrocarbon vapor recovery system 

with a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98% to control VOC 

emissions from the ethanol loading 

racks at Abengoa. A CEMS must be used 

to monitor the carbon adsorption/

absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery 

system for breakthrough of VOC 

emissions. These requirements are 

contained in Commissioner’s Order No. 

2015–01 issued by the IDEM 

Commissioner on September 8, 2015. 

In Abengoa’s initial construction and 

operating permit issued by IDEM, the 

ethanol loading racks were subject to 

the statewide case-by-case Best 

Available Control Technology 

(statewide BACT) determination 

required under SIP-approved Title 326 

Article 8 Rule 1–6 of the Indiana 

Administrative Code (326 IAC 8–1–6). 

The statewide BACT for Abengoa’s 

ethanol loading racks was determined to 

be enclosed flares with a minimum 

overall control efficiency of 98%. Since 

then, Abengoa has modified its plant 

design, including the ethanol loading 

racks, and is now subject to a newer 

SIP-approved state rule, 326 IAC 8–5–6, 

Fuel Grade Ethanol Production at Dry 

Mills, which created an industryspecific statewide BACT standard and 

which replaced the statewide case-bycase BACT rule (326 IAC 8–1–6) for fuel 

grade ethanol production dry mills that 

have no wet milling operations. EPA 

approved this rule into the SIP on 

February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9201). 

The three VOC control options under 

326 IAC 8–5–6 are: (1) A thermal 

oxidizer with a minimum overall 

control efficiency of 98% or resulting in 

a VOC concentration of not more than 

ten (10) parts per million (ppm), (2) a 

wet scrubber with a minimum overall 

control efficiency of 98% or resulting in 

a VOC concentration of not more than 

twenty (20) ppm, and (3) an enclosed 

flare with a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98%. The VOC control 

options under 326 IAC 8–5–6 do not 

include a carbon adsorption/absorption 

hydrocarbon vapor recovery system. 

Abengoa has opted to use a carbon 

adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon 

vapor recovery system rather than one 

of the VOC control options under 326 

IAC 8–5–6. However, like the VOC 

control options under 326 IAC 8–5–6, 

Abengoa’s carbon adsorption/absorption 

system has a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98%. IDEM considers the 

system Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) under SIP rule 326 

IAC 8–1–5 (Petition for a site-specific 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) plan). 

As a result, pursuant to 326 IAC 8–1– 

5, Indiana has issued Commissioner’s 

Order No. 2015–01 approving Abengoa’s 

use of this system as an alternative sitespecific RACT in lieu of the industryspecific statewide BACT options under 

326 IAC 8–5–6. The carbon adsorption/ 

absorption system will control VOC 

emissions at a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98%, which is the same 

level of control of the industry-specific 

BACT options under 326 IAC 8–5–6; 

therefore, there will be no relaxation of 

the emission reduction requirements at 

Abengoa as a result of this SIP revision. 

As an added benefit, Abengoa’s use of 

the carbon adsorption/absorption 

system is expected to result in fewer 

criteria air pollutant emissions, since, 

unlike enclosed flares, carbon 

adsorption/absorption does not involve 

the combustion of natural gas. 

It should be noted that Condition #3 

of the ‘‘Conditions of Approval’’ in 

Commissioner’s Order 2015–01 states: 

‘‘The overall efficiency for the carbon 

adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon 

vapor recovery system (C–2101), 

including the capture efficiency and 

adsorption/absorption efficiency, shall 

be at least 98%. The Petitioner shall 

demonstrate compliance using methods 

approved by the department. Testing 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

the provisions of 326 IAC 3–6 (Source 

Sampling Procedures)’’. IDEM has 

confirmed in an email to EPA dated 

June 6, 2016, that this provision requires 

testing using EPA Method 25 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7). 

II. What action is EPA taking and why? 

EPA is approving the requirements in 

Commissioner’s Order No. 2015–01 as a 

revision to the Indiana SIP. This is 

based on EPA’s finding that the 98% 

minimum overall control efficiency 

adsorption/absorption system with a 

CEMS qualifies as alternative sitespecific RACT under 326 IAC 8–1–5 of 

the Indiana SIP for Abengoa’s ethanol 

loading racks. EPA also finds that this 

system constitutes statewide BACT 

under 326 IAC 8–1–6 of the Indiana SIP 

in lieu of the industry-specific statewide 

BACT options under 326 IAC 8–5–6 of 

the Indiana SIP. There will be no 

relaxation of the emission reduction 

requirements at Abengoa as a result of 

this SIP revision. Since this is not a 

relaxation, section 110(l) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) is satisfied and no 

backsliding is occurring as a result of 

this SIP revision. As an added benefit, 

Abengoa’s use of the carbon adsorption/ 

absorption system is expected to result 

in fewer criteria air pollutant emissions, 

since, unlike enclosed flares, carbon 

adsorption/absorption does not involve 

the combustion of natural gas. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective October 11, 2016 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by September 

12, 2016. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53299 

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

October 11, 2016. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Indiana Regulations 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these 

materials have been approved by EPA 

for inclusion in the State 

implementation plan, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.1

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ 

section of this preamble for more 

information. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 1, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by adding a new entry 

for ‘‘Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana’’ to 

the end of the table, to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53300 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 2014 emission reduction commitments are 

codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2) and 

52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2). 76 FR 69896, 69926 

(November 9, 2011). 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation 

*******

9/8/2015 ............................. Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana.N.A .................................... 8/12/2016, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Alternative control technology requirements. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19032 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0489; FRL–9950–19– 

Region 9] 

Revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan; San Joaquin 

Valley; Demonstration of Creditable 

Emission Reductions From Economic 

Incentive Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

demonstration of creditable emission 

reductions submitted by California for 

approval into the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP 

submittal demonstrates that certain state 

incentive funding programs have 

achieved specified amounts of 

reductions in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) in the SJV area by 2014. The 

effect of this action would be to approve 

specific amounts of emission reductions 

for credit toward an emission reduction 

commitment in the California SIP. We 

are approving these emission reductions 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0489 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972 

3248, Perez.Idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51147), 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

‘‘Report on Reductions Achieved from 

Incentive-based Emission Reduction 

Measures in the San Joaquin Valley’’ 

(Emission Reduction Report) and, based 

on California’s documentation therein of 

actions taken by grantees in accordance 

with the identified incentive program 

guidelines, to approve 7.8 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of 

PM2.5 emission reductions for credit 

toward the State’s 2014 emission 

reduction commitments in its 2008 plan 

to provide for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin 

Valley (hereafter ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’).1

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) adopted the Emission Reduction 

Report on October 24, 2014 and 

submitted it to EPA as a revision to the 

California SIP on November 17, 2014. 

We proposed to approve the Emission 

Reduction Report based on a 

determination that it satisfied the 

applicable CAA requirements. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the Emission Reduction 

Report and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received comments from 

Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, by email 

dated and received September 16, 2015. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that 

the emission reductions identified in 

the Emission Reduction Report are not 

enforceable by the public and therefore 

should not be approved into the SIP. 

According to Earthjustice, the Carl 

Moyer program allows air districts to 

enter into emission reduction 

agreements with grant recipients, with 

CARB added to contracts as a third 

party with enforcement rights, but does 

not enable the public to enforce these 

emission reduction agreements entered 

into among CARB, the air district, and 

the grant recipient. Earthjustice argues 

that the EPA’s enforceability criteria 

require that citizens have access to all 

emissions-related information obtained 

from participating sources and be able 

to file suit against a responsible entity 

for violations, and that the Emission 

Reduction Report does not meet these 

criteria. 

Response 1: We agree with the 

commenter’s statement that the public 

cannot enforce the agreements entered 

into among CARB, an air district and a 

grant recipient but disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that this 

renders the Emission Reduction Report 

inconsistent with the EPA’s 

enforceability criteria. This Emission 

Reduction Report was submitted to 

demonstrate that that a portion of the 

emission reductions required under a 

previously approved SIP commitment 

have in fact been achieved—not to 

satisfy a future emission reduction 

requirement—and thus it does not need 

to provide a citizen enforcement 

mechanism. 

As we explained in our proposed rule, 

where a state relies on a discretionary 

economic incentive program (EIP) or 

other voluntary measure to satisfy an 

attainment planning requirement under 

the CAA (e.g., to demonstrate that 

specific amounts of emission reductions 

will occur by a future milestone date), 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES